Article Text
Response
The need for feasible compromises on conscientious objection: response to Card
Abstract
Robert Card criticises our proposal for managing some conscientious objections in medicine. Unfortunately, he severely mischaracterises the nature of our proposal, its scope and its implications. He also overlooks the fact that our proposal is a compromise designed for a particular political context. We correct Card’s mischaracterisations, explain why we believe compromise is necessary and explain how we think proposed compromises should be evaluated.
- conscientious objection
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine
- Toward accommodating physicians’ conscientious objections: an argument for public disclosure
- Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies
- The Market View on conscientious objection: overvalued
- In defence of medical tribunals and the reasonability standard for conscientious objection in medicine
- Some difficulties involved in locating the truth behind conscientious objection in medicine
- Conscientious objection should not be equated with moral objection: a response to Ben-Moshe
- Conscientious objection in medical students: a questionnaire survey
- The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine: a reply to Clarke, Emmerich, Minerva and Saad
- Conscientious objection: unmasking the impartial spectator